Comments on: Madonna Extends Her Stay In Malawi

By: Joanne

Joanne — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:45:56 +0000

“That whiny feminist bullsh*t” – JJ … Female celebrities and women in general get scrutinised and punished by legal systems in ways that male celebrities and males in general, don’t. Britney Spears is a perfect example of this. I could go on about how the ‘powers that be’ love to stick women with that ‘mental health problem’ label or how they don’t care much for women (like Madonna) who have a ‘sexual side’ …. but I don’t want to bore you with the facts of life.

By: sandbot

sandbot — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:09:59 +0000

The human trafficking issue seems like another excuse to me…they determine these adoptions with thorough investigations on a case-by-case basis. You think if they gave an exception to Madonna any Joe pimp will be able to come by with his millions and be handed an orphan? They’re gonna follow up with the family for a long time after the child is adopted. We’re not part of these social services yet we can see that David is being clothed, fed, cared for etc.

And yes it would be nice if Madonna could support the entire country and have every child there be able to stay with their family but the reality is, she’s a mom who yearns to save one child under her own care. Come to think of it, forget saving a child in Africa, maybe she should stick to the american way…invitro to her heart’s desire a la Octomom.

By: J

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:58:06 +0000

The devils hands!!!! Arrrrghhh.

IMO: Yes Mercy would have a better life living with Madonna. Who wouldn’t. But i believe like everyone else, Madonna has and probably is trying to abuse the adoption system with her fame and money. Of corse she is going to deny it – but she would have to be a very impatient person i believe. Now she probably cares alot about these orphans and Mercy to want to abuse the system to save ones life as soon as possible, but it’s still unfair. I don’t care what all the fans say to this claiming its hating on Madonna and stupid opinion because she isn’t abusing the system. BULLSHIZ.. she might not be shedding out thousands of dollars to get Mercy, she is probably just hurrying the process up to get Mercy and go home – something REGULAR people can’t do. Regular people who really want kids but cannot because of pregnancy problems.

I’m glad this is occurring to Madonna to show the world and celebs etc… that you just cant click your fingers and get what you want. Just be patient and follow guidelines and laws.

By: JJ

JJ — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:56:18 +0000

@ Beth – I totally agree! @ Road – “If this were a male they wouldn’t hassle her”? Oh please! I hate that whiny feminist bullsh*t.

By: Beth

Beth — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:30:38 +0000

@Road: I don’t think anyone is accusing Madonna of child trafficking, after all, everyone would notice if she adopted Mercy and then the little girl disappeared. What the problem is, is that by allowing this adoption, the country of Malawi would create a legal loophole which OTHER people would be able to exploit in order to sell children for sex/slavery. Not fucking cool. So while there is no question Mercy would be safe, it would open the door to criminals, and put the other children in jeopardy. Legal precedence is an important legal concept, which i don’t think you (and a lot of other people, apparently) are fully understanding.

Also, she had to have known about the residency requirement, as she has a Malawian lawyer. And there have been rumors of her adopting Mercy since David’s adoption. It would have been beyond easy for her to buy a fucking house in Malawi back then, which would have satisfied the requirement. Or she could buy it now, and take custody of Mercy when the time-requirement is up. If she really loves that girl, she will be willing to do that, and everything will be cool, there will be no problem.

Also, just an aside: she doesn’t let her ego win?? Are you sure we are talking about the same Madonna?

By: Road

Road — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:25:38 +0000

Madonna is not a stranger to the country, in fact shes made the country a house hold name, now Malawi is one of the most “famous” countries in Africa for the rest of time, and they want to use the name Madonna and child trafficking in the same sentence, I would be pissed. I think the judge has a personal dislike of Madonna or misunderstanding of the type of person she is, Its a big slap in the face to Madonna, who has shown that country the highest respect and admiration yet they turn around and try to humuliate her. They all get off in humuliating her.
What if Madonna were to say “Fuck it, Im taking my 3 kids and leaving the hell out of here. You guys dont like me, you dont want my help, fine I get it See Ya, fend for yourselves for the rest of time.” but I know she wont do that, because shes doesnt let her ego win. But they better just watch their disrespect, cause she might just get fed up. I have a feeling that if this were a male they wouldnt hassel her.

By: beth

beth — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:34:39 +0000

sure, little Mercy loses out on a lavish lifestyle – but if the judge is correct that to allow this precedent to be set would put the lives of many other children in danger from human traffickers (which seems a very reasonable concern, honestly) and that Mercy is being adequately provided for by the orphanage (no, it’s not a desirable life, but adequate food and shelter), then I agree that the lives of so many other children should not be put at risk by setting a dangerous precedent.
Yes, its sucks monkey balls for this family, but could very likely prevent untold heartache for many others — ‘course it’s hard for some people to care about anonymous, faceless orphans, much easier to sympathize with the one that has a human face.
I’m disappointed with some people’s shortsighted views on this matter.

By: kittycatastrophe

kittycatastrophe — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:57:22 +0000

Wait, David had been at the orphanage for less than 6 months, and his father had only placed him there to receive care with the expectation that he would be returned 6 months after placement? How was a kid like that ever eligible for adoption in the first place since the judge’s ruling makes it appear that he wasn’t actually abandoned? Adoptions should be stopped in that country until they get their stuff together so there’s no confusion for adoptive parents.

By: It's Trent, Bitch!

It's Trent, Bitch! — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:46:14 +0000

@sandbot – I totally agree, it’s little Mercy who loses out.

By: sandbot

sandbot — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:44:02 +0000

I know the policy behind these rules is to protect kids from trafficking but like the judge said herself, this exception would make a difference in the life of *at least* this one child. What are the other options for this little girl whose mother died from childbirth at age 14? Her future adoption prospects look pretty bleak to me. I think they’re just trying to make an example of Madge and end the popstar adoption boom but really it’s the kid that takes the hit in the long run. This girl won the golden ticket to a decent shot at life and now it’s being taken away.